Sunday, December 11, 2005

Nobody should need more than 640K....repeated

I felt the need to reproduce this tidbit of shortsightedness from Oracle towards mySQL. If you read it you'll note the statement of lack of triggers, etc...they're available now...and its still 2005. This quote following below was taken from


What kind of a threat does Oracle see open-source databases being, say, five years down the road?

Anything that expands the size of the market for databases and introduces new developers to database technology is a good thing. As customers run out of steam with MySQL, they will upgrade to enterprise-class products like Oracle.

Looking at the track record of MySQL's release history and the large set of deficiencies in functionality and reliability, it will take many years before it begins to reach technical parity with mainstream database products. By then, of course, the entire database market will have moved on, with customers raising new requirements and new technologies being brought to market.

MySQL production releases have typically been two years apart, and the time from alpha [first release] to production is about 1.5 years. They released Version 5.0 in alpha status in December 2003, so a reasonable expectation for production release of Version 5.0 is mid-2005.

It should be noted that MySQL Version 5.0 introduced stored procedures but not triggers or views, both of which are essential for significant enterprise applications. It appears unlikely that MySQL could introduce these critical features much before mid-2007. A whole wide range of additional capabilities including but not limited to XML and analytic—i.e. business-intelligence—features do not appear to be on the MySQL radar.

Furthermore, the low level of resources available to MySQL to fund development and the very small size of their development team raise questions about the viability of the MySQL business model and technology development path going forward.

It is unlikely that MySQL can rapidly accelerate development of their core product while acquiring and integrating disparate database technologies like the SAP DB (now called MaxDB) or MySQL Cluster. Indeed, this sort of 'engineering by acquisition' is a distraction and fragments their development efforts.


Anyway, I thought it interesting that Oracle is very interested in acquisitions as well. Does this mean they'll be distracted as well?

Friday, December 02, 2005

Starbucks Vs. Sam Buck's

This is a short addition, but I think it is absolutely pathetic for a nationwide incredibly lucrative chain of coffee houses called Starbucks to attack a single coffee house called "Sam Buck's" based on the similarity of name. Normally an imposter would make me feel that Starbucks was justified in doing so, but in this case the owner's name was "Samantha Buck".

Court rulings held that Sam would need to change the name of her coffee house, and I don't suppose anyone should argue with the law, but shame on Starbucks.

The next time they think they're doing right by providing the best health care package to their employees or working for coffee growers rights, why don't they stop and ask what the harm in letting a sole proprietor operate a coffee house when the name follows the owners name which just happens to be similar to the brand "Starbucks".

Oh yeah...and Sam Buck will be paying Starbucks legal fees.